Because as the saying goes "Class is permanent" - comparing Gregory to Smith is nonsense is like comparing Glen Lazarus to Ian Kirke.

So can you answer the question? Or does you amazing knowledge of rugby league, obviously gained from playing for GB v Australia not allow you to back up your opinions? I think you need to improve your self-awareness, there are plenty of free courses and tests you can take to help you with that. Because someone who apparently understands life in general so well would realise that in life you often have to back up your opinions with either facts or some reasoning. What you then do is present your reasons and people debate them.

However if you choose not to do so then people might just come to the conclusion that you can't actually back it up, especially if you then resort to unnecessary personal abuse just because someone has the nerve to disagree with your unsupported claim. In that situation you run the risk of being described as an arrogant, patronising pillock.

I haven't compared Smith to Gregory in terms of equating them. Just asking why people think he would be so far ahead, to use their own terms, "in a different Galaxy" & "have skills the current England halves could only dream of".

Considering the game is very very different, especially for a halfback, compared to Gregory's day I'm asking why people think Gregory would necessarily fit in/work in a modern team at halfback and definitely why he would be somehow on a level well beyond the current players.

I'm not saying in the slightest that Gregory or any other top player wouldn't have made it today, but as I said in my reply to Voltaire that he couldn't be d to reply to, I think some top players from the past would've made it today and some wouldn't and vice versa for the current top players.

Can't agree with that. I loved Davies (I asume you don't mean Jonathan Edwards or Shaun Edwards) but Johns had everything a RL half back needs, physically not the quickest but his kicking, vision, and speed of thought were as good as any half I've seen play the game. At his best a privilidge to watch.

Andy Gregory is the best British halfback I’ve seen in over 30 years. His ability to control a game with his passing, kicking and running was light years ahead of any other British player I’ve seen since. . It’s no coincidence that some of our best performances at international level came when he was in the team. Wally Lewis rated him as the best English player he ever came up against.

Only Johns and Sterling eclipse him IMO.

I’ve no doubt that if he had access to modern training methods he’s be as dominant now as he was back then.

You're mainly wrong I'm afraid.

Bit stiff to start with but a few games in he was brilliant. Considers some of the games played at Wakefield amongst his best. You're right about his team mates or most of them but some got it - he was the making of Nigel Bell that's for certain. Bloke is a genuine legend at BV along with Ray Price who did similar in a very different way.

Andrew Johns is a genius, he shaped the modern game of how halves play. His vision was better than anybody else that I've seen. Freddie Fitler was a proper stand off, strong, good passer, had a decent short kick and a great awareness. Cameron Smith in a different way is brilliant, he is exceptionally consistent. Doesn't miss tackles, never a bad pass and punishes teams with his kicking. Smith isn't in the same class of the above, but would complete 100 of his 100 attempts at a skill (Except goal kicks, as seen on Saturday!)

Andrew Farrell was a complete player, competent kicker, good passing game and a tough as they come. Sculthorpe was as good as him also. What Mike Gregory lacked behind these two in skill, he made up for in heart, and was a real leader too.

Meninga was unplayable at times, size strength and pace. Davies was crafty and lighting quick, and had a good rugby brain.

Tough to say who was the best, but in my opinion Johns sneaks it, what he couldn't do, wasn't worth learning.

Yes, like Boxing Day 1983 when a then-relatively unknown Kiwi named Gary Freeman (fresh from Kent Invicta) ran rings round (an admittedly hung-over) Wally Lewis for Castleford against Wakefield.

Because great players are largely reliant on their individual skill sets - Gregory is no different. Natural ability never goes away regardless of era. Great players often remain at the top for ten years the game changes massively in that time but they seem to find a way of coping.

That never happened!

Freeman played very well in the game and John Joyner also upped his game but neither eclipsed Lewis who was still the best player ion the pitch that day.

knockersbump - I started watching in the early 80s. Not a single forward from that time would be first grade if brought forward to today without massive increases in fitness because they played a different sport.

I have watched Aussie GFs from the 90s and if you watch them on video the increase in fitness levels is quite surprising - any "best of" NRL side from the 90s would get murdered today as they just weren't as fit, and the defences were dreadful compared to today.

As I said, if you were around then (by your nickname I assume you were), do you not remember that Eric Grothe was seen as a giant amongst wingers at 14.5 stone in 1982? Meninga was 15 stone 10 (IIRC) on the 82 tour, and seen as a freak, and yet Ryan Hall would outweigh him by more than half a stone.

The easiest way to see how the game has changed is on that video sharing site. Have a look at Canberra Raiders from the 80s, the Broncos with Langer et al in full flight, and any team before them, and its as clear as day if you watch what the defences were doing aginst them that they had acres of space and nobody was anywhere near fit in today's terms.

TBH I find the older stuff more entertaining, and the skills on show more enjoyable to watch. But fitness? Organisation in defence? Some of its almost laughably poor when you look at a whole game.

Yes, players have got bigger and stronger on the whole but you can only judge players by reference to their status in their own era. If you look at old footage from as long as 80 years ago you can find examples of far better than you ever see today and with the old balls that weighed a ton in comparison. So you can find tangible evidence of reduced standards in some areas! So far as the British game is concerned there were more quality players in say the '50s than there have been at any time in the last 40 years, so stand out players in that era were, in my opinion, generally better than our stand out players of today. I recall a testimonial match at Widnes in the '70s when Widnes were "Cup Kings" and Vince Karalius played. Although 20 years older than the Widnes players and off the pace due to age when he tackled them (including then current internationals) he chucked them around like rag dolls. Far stronger than most current players of that era.

No, it has to be Sean O'Verated.

More seriously, I can only pick the players I have seen, and I couldn't pick just one, so ...

Andrew Ettinghausen
Jason Robinson
Mal Meninga
Keith Senior
Martin Offiah
Darren Lockyer
Andrew Johns
Shane Webke
Danny Buderus
Kevin Ward
Gorden Tallis
Adrian Morley
Ellery

I just don't understand why people think guys like Gregory would be head and shoulders above anyone else if they were around today.

With modern training etc I'm sure he would still be a very good player in the modern game. But he wouldn't stand out any more than any other good halfbacks these days.

There's a tribute to Gregory on YouTube. Some of the breaks he makes in that video are against pathetic defensive lines. I've seen Richard Horne make breaks like that all through his career against much better defenders, and yet Horne will be remembered as a slightly above average Superleague half back. He also creates a try with a long cut out pass, but he has to turn his back to the defensive line because he can't pass well enough to his right. Hardly "skills that current halves could only dream of."

These players were indeed greats of the game, and should be remembered. They all played their part in pushing the boundaries of the game and were the best of their generation. However it's disrespectful to modern players who are more professional and work much harder to suggest that the old guys would be head and shoulders above if they played today, because it's simply not true.

Makes great story, not much of it factual. Didn't happen.